Dual Versus Mono Antiplatelet Therapy in Large Atherosclerotic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Two large-scale randomized controlled trials of recurrent stroke prevention suggest that dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin is beneficial for prevention of subsequent ischemic events. There is a paucity of data, however, on the efficacy or effectiveness of such an approach in the treatment of stroke patients with symptomatic large artery atherosclerotic occlusive disease. Methods- We used a multicenter stroke registry database (Clinical Research Collaboration for Stroke in Korea) to analyze acute ischemic stroke patients due to large artery atherosclerotic occlusive disease who were treated with aspirin alone or combination of clopidogrel and aspirin from May 2008 to May 2015. The results were analyzed by intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and as-treated methodologies. The primary end point was the 1-year composite outcome of stroke recurrence, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death. To balance the differences between groups, a frailty model using propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting was used. Results- A total of 5934 patients with symptomatic large artery atherosclerotic occlusive disease were treated either with clopidogrel plus aspirin (n=2903, 49%) or aspirin (n=3031, 51%). The frequency of the primary outcome was 12% (n=353) in the clopidogrel-aspirin group and 14% (n=410) in the aspirin group. The hazards of the primary outcome with combination over aspirin only were significantly reduced in the per-protocol and as-treated analyses (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88; P=0.002 and hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96; P=0.02, respectively), but there was borderline significance in the intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01; P=0.06). Combination therapy was beneficial for all-cause death in all analyses but did not reduce recurrent stroke. Conclusions- Compared with patients receiving aspirin monotherapy, the primary outcome seemed to occur less frequently in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy, which is explained mainly by the decrease of all-cause death. Since this is a nonrandomized, retrospective, observational study, our study should be cautiously interpreted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".